Maybe asinine. But an asinine problem requires an asinine solution. We have enough problems without adding arbitrary ones on top, like the invented debt ceiling and its subsequent biannual invented crisis.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would make a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve.

What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

Lumpmoose:Maybe asinine. But an asinine problem requires an asinine solution. We have enough problems without adding arbitrary ones on top, like the invented debt ceiling and its subsequent biannual invented crisis.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would make a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve.

What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

Holocaust Agnostic:Lumpmoose: Maybe asinine. But an asinine problem requires an asinine solution. We have enough problems without adding arbitrary ones on top, like the invented debt ceiling and its subsequent biannual invented crisis.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would make a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve.

What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

They wold be fairly easy to prove stolen I imagine.

Pawnshop probably couldn't make change.

Now, I want to help you out with this, but unfortunately, I just don't know enough about trillion dollar platinum coins to make a decision right now. Would you mind if I called a guy who's an expert in Numismatics?

In the past, the police had somehow gotten it into their heads that it was illegal to take photographs of anything, anywhere. Some said it was because of "copyright" some said it was because of "homeland security", but the result was the same: they'd make you delete the photographs.

One enterprising photographer came up with the idea of making a "photography license". It was similar to a library card, except that you added a photograph of your face in the top-left corner with glue or a laminator. When the cops stopped you for taking pictures, you could then respond, 'it's okay, I have a photography license', and show them it.

We should be doing this anyway. The law is pretty awesomely vague and cries out for hilarious abuse. As I read it, nothing is stopping Obama from minting a negative-$50 coin and slipping it into John Boehner's pocket.

But seriously, that's exactly right. Obama will (hopefully) move heaven and earth to avoid doing this, because it basically puts a giant clown nose on the entire United States government, and he's not a member of the party that sees that as a good thing in the long run.

But if it comes right down to it... I notice the White House is preemptively rejecting idea that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the President unilateral authority to spend past the debt ceiling. I notice they're not preemptively rejecting this.

Lumpmoose:Maybe asinine. But an asinine problem requires an asinine solution. We have enough problems without adding arbitrary ones on top, like the invented debt ceiling and its subsequent biannual invented crisis.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would make a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve.

What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

In theory, this is much like having the central bank print money. But, says Gagnon, the U.S. government would simply be using the money to keep spending at existing levels, so it wouldn't create any extra inflation.

In the past, the police had somehow gotten it into their heads that it was illegal to take photographs of anything, anywhere. Some said it was because of "copyright" some said it was because of "homeland security", but the result was the same: they'd make you delete the photographs.

One enterprising photographer came up with the idea of making a "photography license". It was similar to a library card, except that you added a photograph of your face in the top-left corner with glue or a laminator. When the cops stopped you for taking pictures, you could then respond, 'it's okay, I have a photography license', and show them it.

semiotix:We should be doing this anyway. The law is pretty awesomely vague and cries out for hilarious abuse. As I read it, nothing is stopping Obama from minting a negative-$50 coin and slipping it into John Boehner's pocket.

Lumpmoose: But an asinine problem requires an asinine solution.

But seriously, that's exactly right. Obama will (hopefully) move heaven and earth to avoid doing this, because it basically puts a giant clown nose on the entire United States government, and he's not a member of the party that sees that as a good thing in the long run.

But if it comes right down to it... I notice the White House is preemptively rejecting idea that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the President unilateral authority to spend past the debt ceiling. I notice they're not preemptively rejecting this.

That is some funny shiat. Ever hear of the Dem Congressman who thought Guam would capsize?

hdhale:"I like it," said Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "There's nothing that's obviously economically problematic about it."

Must be the Peterson Institute for International Economics for the Mentally Challenged. What a total farkwit.

What is he missing? It's not an inflation thing. For all you know, Obama has already deposited an eleventy-quintillion dollar coin at the Fed, but it doesn't affect the value of the dollar in your pocket until it's circulated. And Obama can't spend more money than Congress has already budgeted for in legislation that's already passed.

So how is the coin option worse from an economic standpoint than what will probably happen, which is Boehner eventually giving up and allowing the debt ceiling to rise to accommodate the expenditures Congress has already authorized?

Lumpmoose:What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

Once the coins are created I would think they would be worth whatever they are listed at. But good luck turning into a bank for 10s and 20s. If they could just change the value of current currency (say that 5 times fast!) they could just say that quarters were now worth 5 bucks and we would pump billions into the economy and not need to print or mint a thing.

I would think that thief would be the best solution. Someone would steal the coins and have to lock them away somewhere forever. There for you have the money in the system but locked down. This is the same thing we get with the dollar coin push every couple of years. So the value of the dollar would decrease to the point that we could pay off the debt with piles of useless green backs.

The day these get made you better switch your ARM to a fixed.

"I like it," said Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "There's nothing that's obviously economically problematic about it."

Has he not heard of inflation?!

Joseph Gagnon received a BA from Harvard University in 1981 and a PhD in economics from Stanford University in 1987.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Lumpmoose: What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

Once the coins are created I would think they would be worth whatever they are listed at. But good luck turning into a bank for 10s and 20s. If they could just change the value of current currency (say that 5 times fast!) they could just say that quarters were now worth 5 bucks and we would pump billions into the economy and not need to print or mint a thing.

I would think that thief would be the best solution. Someone would steal the coins and have to lock them away somewhere forever. There for you have the money in the system but locked down. This is the same thing we get with the dollar coin push every couple of years. So the value of the dollar would decrease to the point that we could pay off the debt with piles of useless green backs.

The day these get made you better switch your ARM to a fixed.

"I like it," said Joseph Gagnon of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "There's nothing that's obviously economically problematic about it."

Has he not heard of inflation?!

Joseph Gagnon received a BA from Harvard University in 1981 and a PhD in economics from Stanford University in 1987.

Knight of the Woeful Countenance:Holocaust Agnostic: Lumpmoose: Maybe asinine. But an asinine problem requires an asinine solution. We have enough problems without adding arbitrary ones on top, like the invented debt ceiling and its subsequent biannual invented crisis.

Under this scenario, the U.S. Mint would make a pair of trillion-dollar platinum coins. The president orders the coins to be deposited at the Federal Reserve.

What's the actual physical process for moving the coins from the US Mint to the Federal Reserve? If they're stolen, does the US government just declare them worthless?

They wold be fairly easy to prove stolen I imagine.

Pawnshop probably couldn't make change.

Now, I want to help you out with this, but unfortunately, I just don't know enough about trillion dollar platinum coins to make a decision right now. Would you mind if I called a guy who's an expert in Numismatics?